SHARDA PRASAD Vs. KHADERAN RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS revisionists are assailing the order of the court below on the ground that the order passed by it was incomplete and improper.

(2.) A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the plaintiffs opposite parties questioning the maintainability of the revision. It is contended that the order is appealable and no revision lies. This objection is without any merit. Under the Arbitration Act, an appeal is provided under S.39 thereof amongst others against an order passed under S.20 making or refusing to make a reference. In a Division Bench decision of this Court in State of U.P. v. Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. Bombay 1978 All LJ 1178 it was observed that before making an order under sub-sec.(4) of S.20 of the Act, the Court must necessarily find out if the arbitrators have been named in the agreement and if not it will have to ask the parties to nominate the arbitrator in accordance with the agreement and it is only after this has been done that an order under S.20(4) of the Act referring the dispute to the arbitrator can be made. An order merely deciding that a dispute is to be referred to arbitrator does not amount to an order making a reference as contemplated by S.20(4).

(3.) THE order challenged in the revision is as follows : "Dava bahaq Vadigan Virudh Prativadigan Pakshkaron dwara manoneet panchon dwara vivad nirnay hetu sandarbhit kiye jane hetu agyapt kiya jata hai. Ubhai Paksh vad vyaya swayan vahan karen."